• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Family Violence Appellate Project

Giving survivors a second chance at justice

Giving survivors a second chance at justice Donate




En Español
用中文(表達
In English
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Programs
    • Who We Are
    • Annual Reports & Financials
    • Our Commitment to Race Equity
  • Survivor Stories
  • News
    • Announcements
    • Press Room
    • Battle of the Bands
  • Resources
    • California
      • FVAP Legal Resource Library – California
      • Cases You Can Use – California
      • Other Resources You Can Use – California
    • Washington
      • FVAP Legal Resource Library – Washington
      • Cases You Can Use – Washington
      • Other Resources You Can Use – Washington
    • National
  • Get Involved
    • Donate
      • Herma Hill Kay Memorial Fund
    • Volunteer
    • Clerks/Fellows
    • Job Openings
  • Contact Us

Legal Victory! Legal precedent for DVRO renewals in CA: Courts must consider abuse/potential for abuse at shared children’s extracurricular activities

February 27, 2018 by FVAP

Today the CA Third District Court of Appeal (Sacramento) granted our request for publication of an appellate decision that will help domestic violence survivors and their children statewide. Rybolt v. Riley sets legal precedent on 2 important issues concerning Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs):
1. For the first time ever in a published opinion, the court explains that an abuser can use a child’s extracurricular activities as a way to harass, intimidate, manipulate, or control the other parent, and directed trial courts to take that into consideration when fashioning safe parenting plans and deciding whether to issue or renew a DVRO. In this case, the abusive party repeatedly violated the restraining order’s 25-yard stay-away requirements when attending sports games and other events, causing trauma to both the abuse survivor and the child. These violations led the trial court to renew the survivor’s DVRO, and the appellate court upheld this decision.
2. The opinion also suggests that trial courts should consider the abusive party’s overall career — not just their current or future job opportunities — when deciding whether a DVRO renewal would place a possible “burden” on the restrained party’s employment prospects. In this case, the court found that previous unrelated misconduct the restrained party’s career severely hindered their future job prospects, and determined that a renewed restraining order would be unlikely to create additional barriers that didn’t already exist. This is only the second case since 2004 to discuss the possible burdens that a renewed DVRO could place on the restrained party, providing helpful clarifications that now can be used to support a survivors’ restraining order renewal requests. (The other case, Lister v. Bowen, was also published after a request from FVAP in 2012.)

Filed Under: announcements

Footer

Website Privacy

Policy here
California Office
Helpline: (510) 380-6243
Business line: (510) 858-7358
Email: info@fvaplaw.org

Washington Office
Direct line: (360) 680-1030
Email: infoWA@fvaplaw.org

Website By

Sign Up for Updates

Free, full-service interpretation & translation services available. Servicios gratuitos y completos de traducción e interpretación disponibles. 我们能够提供免费的翻译服务

We serve everyone regardless of immigration status. No rechazamos el servicio basado en el estado de inmigración. 無論您的移民身份如何,我們都將為您服務.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

COVID-19 update: While FVAP is open and our services continue to be available, as of March 9, 2020, in order to ensure the safety and well-being of clients and FVAP staff, we are meeting with visitors only by appointment until further notice. Our helpline is (510) 380-6243, and our business line is (510) 858-7358. You may also email us at info@fvaplaw.org.
Leave Site

Copyright Family Violence Appellate Project 2022